NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement
April, 24th 2014
19:31 BRT

PREAMBLE
This is the non-binding outcome of a bottom-up, open, and participatory process
involving thousands of people from governments, private sector, civil society,technical community, and academia from around the world. The NETmundial
conference was the first of its kind. It hopefully contributes to the evolution of theInternet governance ecosystem.

INTRODUCTION
The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, also
known as NETmundial, is convened to discuss two important issues relevant for the
future evolution of the Internet, in an open and multistakeholder fashion:
1. Internet Governance Principles, and2. Roadmap for the future evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem
The recommendations in this document have been prepared with the view to guiding
NETmundial to consensus. This has been a collaborative effort among
representatives of all stakeholder groups.
More than 180 contributions have been received from all stakeholders around theglobe. Those contributions have been taken as the basis for the elaboration of therecommendations submitted here to the participants of NETmundial towards thedevelopment of broad consensus.
The recommendations of NETmundial are also intended to constitute a potentiallyvaluable contribution for use in other Internet governance related fora and entities.

1. INTERNET GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES
NETmundial identified a set of common principles and important values that
contribute for an inclusive, multistakeholder, effective, legitimate, and evolving
Internet governance framework and recognized that the Internet is a global resource
which should be managed in the public interest.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND SHARED VALUESHuman rights are universal as reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and that should underpin Internet governance principles. Rights that people haveoffline must also be protected online, in accordance with international human rights
legal obligations, including the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights
and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities. Those rights include, but are not limited to:Freedom of expression: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion andexpression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference
and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media andregardless of frontiers.

Freedom of association: Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly andassociation online, including through social networks and platforms.

Privacy: The right to privacy must be protected. This includes not being
subject to arbitrary or unlawful surveillance, collection, treatment and use of
personal data. The right to the protection of the law against such interference
should be ensured.
Procedures, practices and legislation regarding the surveillance ofcommunications, their interception and collection of personal data,
including mass surveillance, interception and collection, should be
reviewed, with a view to upholding the right to privacy by ensuring the fulland effective implementation of all obligations under international humanrights law.



Accessibility: persons with disabilities should enjoy full access to online
resources Promote the design, development, production and distribution ofaccessible information, technologies and systems on the internet.



Freedom of information and access to information: Everyone should havethe right to access, share, create and distribute information on the Internet,
consistent with the rights of authors and creators as established in law.



Development: all people have a right to development and the Internet has avital role to play in helping to achieve the full realization of internationallyagreed sustainable development goals. It is a vital tool for giving people living
in poverty the means to participate in development processes.

PROTECTION OF INTERMEDIARIESIntermediary liability limitations should be implemented in a way that respects andpromotes economic growth, innovation, creativity and free flow of information. In thisregard, cooperation among all stakeholders should be encouraged to address anddeter illegal activity, consistent with fair process.

CULTURE AND LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY
Internet governance must respect, protect and promote cultural and linguistic
diversity in all its forms.

UNIFIED AND UNFRAGMENTED SPACEInternet should continue to be a globally coherent, interconnected, stable,
unfragmented, scalable and accessible network-of-networks, based on a common
set of unique identifiers and that allows data packets/information to flow freely endto-end regardless of the lawful content.

SECURITY, STABILITY AND RESILIENCE OF THE INTERNET
Security, stability and resilience of the Internet should be a key objective of all
stakeholders in Internet governance. As a universal global resource, the Internet
should be a secure, stable, resilient, reliable and trustworthy network. Effectivenessin addressing risks and threats to security and stability of the Internet depends onstrong cooperation among different stakeholders.

OPEN AND DISTRIBUTED ARCHITECTURE
The Internet should be preserved as a fertile and innovative environment based on
an open system architecture, with voluntary collaboration, collective stewardship andparticipation, and upholds the end-to-end nature of the open Internet, and seeks fortechnical experts to resolve technical issues in the appropriate venue in a mannerconsistent with this open, collaborative approach.

ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE INNOVATIONAND CREATIVITY
The ability to innovate and create has been at the heart of the remarkable growth of
the Internet and it has brought great value to the global society. For the preservationof its dynamism, Internet governance must continue to allow permissionlessinnovation through an enabling Internet environment, consistent with other principles
in this document. Enterprise and investment in infrastructure are essential
components of an enabling environment.

INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLESMultistakeholder: Internet governance should be built on democratic,
multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountableparticipation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector,
civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users.
The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should beinterpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion.

Open, participative, consensus driven governance: The development ofinternational Internet-related public policies and Internet governancearrangements should enable the full and balanced participation of all
stakeholders from around the globe, and made by consensus, to the extent
possible.

Transparent: Decisions made must be easy to understand, processes must
be clearly documented and follow agreed procedures, and procedures must
be developed and agreed upon through multistakeholder processes.



Accountable: Mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as
for review and redress should exist. Governments have primary, legal andpolitical accountability for the protection of human rights

Inclusive and equitable: Internet governance institutions and processes
should be inclusive and open to all interested stakeholders. Processes,
including decision making, should be bottom-up, enabling the full involvementof all stakeholders, in a way that does not disadvantage any category of
stakeholder.



Distributed: Internet Governance should be carried out through a distributed,
decentralized and multistakeholder ecosystem.

Collaborative: Internet governance should be based on and encourage
collaborative and cooperative approaches that reflect the inputs and interestsof stakeholders.



Enabling meaningful participation: Anyone affected by an Internet
governance process should be able to participate in that process. Particularly,

Internet governance institutions and processes should support capacity
building for newcomers, especially stakeholders from developing countries
and underrepresented groups.
Access and low barriers: Internet governance should promote universal, equal
opportunity, affordable and high quality Internet access so it can be an effective
tool for enabling human development and social inclusion. There should be no
unreasonable or discriminatory barriers to entry for new users. Public access is a
powerful tool for providing access to the Internet.
Agility: Policies for access to Internet services should be future oriented andtechnology neutral, so that they are able to accommodate rapidly developing
technologies and different types of use.

OPEN STANDARDSInternet governance should promote open standards, informed by individual andcollective expertise and decisions made by rough consensus, that allow for a global,
interoperable, resilient, stable, decentralized, secure, and interconnected network,
available to all. Standards must be consistent with human rights and allow
development and innovation.

2. ROADMAP FOR THE FUTURE EVOLUTION OF
THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE
The objective of this proposed roadmap for the future evolution of Internet
governance is to outline possible steps forward in the process of continuously
improving the existing Internet governance framework ensuring the full involvementof all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities.
The Internet governance framework is a distributed and coordinated ecosystem
involving various organizations and fora. It must be inclusive, transparent andaccountable, and its structures and operations must follow an approach that enables
the participation of all stakeholders in order to address the interests of all those who
use the Internet as well as those who are not yet online.
The implementation of the Tunis Agenda has demonstrated the value of themultistakeholder model in Internet governance. The valuable contribution of all
stakeholders to Internet governance should be recognized. Due to the successful
experiences this model should be further strengthened, improved and evolved.
Internet governance should promote sustainable and inclusive development and forthe promotion of human rights. Participation should reflect geographic diversity andinclude stakeholders from developing, least developed countries and small island
developing states.

I.
Issues that deserve attention of all stakeholders in the
future evolution of Internet governance.
1.
Internet governance decisions are sometimes taken without the meaningful
participation of all stakeholders. It is important that multistakeholder decision-making
and policy formulation are improved in order to ensure the full participation of allinterested parties, recognizing the different roles played by different stakeholders in
different issues.
2.
Enhanced cooperation as referred to in the Tunis Agenda to addressinternational public policy issues pertaining to the Internet must be implemented on apriority and consensual basis. Taking into consideration the efforts of the CSTD
working group on enhanced cooperation, it is important that all stakeholders commit
to advancing this discussion in a multistakeholder fashion.
3.
Stakeholder representatives appointed to multistakeholder Internet
governance processes should be selected through open, democratic, andtransparent processes. Different stakeholder groups should self-manage theirprocesses based on inclusive, publicly known, well defined and accountablemechanisms.
4.
There is a need to develop multistakeholder mechanisms at the national levelowing to the fact that a good portion of Internet governance issues should be tackled
at this level. National multistakeholder mechanisms should serve as a link between

local discussions and regional and global instances. Therefore a fluent coordinationand dialogue across those different dimensions is essential.
5.
There should be meaningful participation by all interested parties in Internet
governance discussions and decision-making, with attention to geographic,stakeholder and gender balance in order to avoid asymmetries.
6.
Enabling capacity building and empowerment through such measures suchas remote participation and adequate funding, and access to meaningful and timely
information are essential for promoting inclusive and effective Internet governance.
7.
All stakeholders should renew their commitment to build a people centered,inclusive and development oriented Information Society as defined by the WSIS
outcome documents. Therefore in pursuing the improvements of the Internet
governance ecosystem, the focus on development should be retained.
8.
Internet governance discussions would benefit from improved communicationand coordination between technical and non-technical communities, providing abetter understanding about the policy implications in technical decisions andtechnical implications in policy decision-making.

II. Issues dealing with institutional improvements.
1.
All of the organizations with responsibilities in the Internet governanceecosystem should develop and implement principles for transparency, accountability
and inclusiveness. All such organizations should prepare periodic reports on theirprogress and status on these issues. Those reports should be made publicly
available.
2.
Consideration should be given to the possible need for mechanisms toconsider emerging topics and issues that are not currently being adequately
addressed by existing Internet governance arrangements.
3.
There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
Important recommendations to that end were made by the UN CSTD working groupon IGF improvements. It is suggested that these recommendations will be
implemented by the end of 2015.
Improvements should include inter-alia:a.
Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including creative
ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy options;b.

Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;c.
Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF, including
through a broadened donor base, is essential;d.
The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions
between meetings through intersessional dialogues.
A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both longstanding and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the identification of
possible ways to address them.

4.
There should be adequate communication and coordination among existing
forums, task forces and organizations of the Internet governance ecosystem.
Periodic reports, formal liaisons and timely feedbacks are examples of mechanismsthat could be implemented to that end. It would be recommendable to analyze theoption of creating Internet governance coordination tools to perform on-going
monitoring, analysis, and information-sharing functions.
5.
In the follow up to the recent and welcomed announcement of US
Government with regard to its intent to transition the stewardship of IANA functions,the discussion about mechanisms for guaranteeing the transparency andaccountability of those functions after the US Government role ends, has to takeplace through an open process with the participation of all stakeholders extending
beyond the ICANN community.
The IANA functions are currently performed under policies developed in processes
hosted by several organizations and forums. Any adopted mechanism should protect
the bottom up, open and participatory nature of those policy development processes
and ensure the stability and resilience of the Internet. It is desirable to discuss theadequate relation between the policy and operational aspects.
This transition should be conducted thoughtfully with a focus on maintaining thesecurity and stability of the Internet, empowering the principle of equal participation
among all stakeholder groups and striving towards a completed transition by
September 2015.
6.
It is expected that the process of globalization of ICANN speeds up leading toa truly international and global organization serving the public interest with clearly
implementable and verifiable accountability and transparency mechanisms thatsatisfy requirements from both internal stakeholders and the global community.
The active representation from all stakeholders in the ICANN structure from all
regions is a key issue in the process of a successful globalization.

III. Issues dealing with specific Internet Governance topics
1.

Security and Stabilitya.
It is necessary to strengthen international cooperation on topics such as
jurisdiction and law enforcement assistance to promote cybersecurity and prevent
cybercrime. Discussions about those frameworks should be held in a
multistakeholder manner.
b.
Initiatives to improve cybersecurity and address digital security threats should
involve appropriate collaboration among governments, private sector, civil society,academia and technical community. There are stakeholders that still need to
become more involved with cybersecurity, for example, network operators andsoftware developers.
c.
There is room for new forums and initiatives. However, they should not
duplicate, but add to current structures. All stakeholders should aim to leverage
from and improve these already existing cybersecurity organizations. The experience
accumulated by several of them demonstrates that, in order to be effective, anycybersecurity initiative depends on cooperation among different stakeholders, and it
cannot be achieved via a single organization or structure.
2.
Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines trust in the Internet and trust in
the Internet governance ecosystem. Collection and processing of personal data bystate and non-state actors should be conducted in accordance with international
human rights law. More dialogue is needed on this topic at the international level
using forums like the Human Rights Council and IGF aiming to develop a common
understanding on all the related aspects.
3.
Capacity building and financing are key requirements to ensure that diverse
stakeholders have an opportunity for more than nominal participation, but in fact gain
the knowhow and the resources for effective participation. Capacity building isimportant to support the emergence of true multistakeholder communities, especiallyin those regions where the participation of some stakeholder groups needs to befurther strengthened.

IV. Points to be further discussed beyond NETmundial:
Several contributions to NETmundial identified the following non-exhaustive list of
points that need better understanding and further discussion in appropriate fora:

Different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet governance,
including the meaning and application of equal footing.
Jurisdiction issues and how they relate to Internet governance.
Benchmarking systems and related indicators regarding the application ofInternet governance principles.
Net neutrality: there were very productive and important discussions about
the issue of net neutrality at NETmundial, with diverging views as to whether
or not to include the specific term as a principle in the outcomes. The
principles do include concepts of an Open Internet and individual rights tofreedom of expression and information. It is important that we continue thediscussion of the Open Internet including how to enable freedom of
expression, competition, consumer choice, meaningful transparency andappropriate network management and recommend that this be addressed atforums such as the next IGF.

V. Way Forward
All the organizations, forums and processes of the Internet governance ecosystemare encouraged to take into account the outcomes of NETmundial.
It is expected that the NETmundial findings and outcomes will feed into otherprocesses and forums, such as the post 2015 development agenda process,
WSIS+10, IGF, and all Internet governance discussions held in different
organizations and bodies at all levels.
The follow up and future discussions of topics listed in this document should inform
work convened by existing entities or bodies. They are invited to report on theirworks in major Internet governance meetings.

Note from secretariat, April 25th: the agreed text on net neutrality (Part 2, Section IV)
had an editorial correction based on the text negotiated in the EMC and thencarefully read out, seen and approved by the HLMC. Exiguous time during the final
edition before the closing ceremony prevented the Secretariat to include theexplanatory text that follows the net neutrality bullet.